Advice needed for new PC: dual Xeon or dual Opteron, or neither...

Hi folks,

I am finally getting near buying a new PC to replace my ancient one, and I
have some decisions to make.

My main use for it will be graphics, and both of the main programs I use
(Photoshop and Ultra Fractal) can take advantage of dual processors. UF in
particular depends primarily on pure number crunching, so CPU speed is the
major determinant of speed. Its architecture is such that dual processors
provide nearly twice the rendering speed of a single CPU.

I had originally thought of going with dual Xeons, say around 2.6 or 2.8
GHz, but I would be able to put something together with dual Opteron 64s for
just around the same price. I haven't been able to find much on the net
about dual Opterons, and I'm wondering about stability issues, etc. I'm not
really interested in overclocking or anything extreme, and my needs apart
from number crunching would be quite modest--I'm not a heavy gamer or
anything.

For that matter I wonder if the 64 bit processors will really offer any
advantages in the next few years in general computer use.

Another option would be to forget about dual CPUs completely and go with a
moderately high end P4 or Athlon.

I'm wondering if anybody has any experience with any of this that they'd
like to share, or links where I could find info on dual Opterons.

Thanks in advance,
Toby

Toby

"Toby" <> wrote in message
news:407f4afe$0$196$...
> Hi folks,
>
> I am finally getting near buying a new PC to replace my ancient one, and I
> have some decisions to make.
>
> My main use for it will be graphics, and both of the main programs I use
> (Photoshop and Ultra Fractal) can take advantage of dual processors. UF in
> particular depends primarily on pure number crunching, so CPU speed is the
> major determinant of speed. Its architecture is such that dual processors
> provide nearly twice the rendering speed of a single CPU.
>
> I had originally thought of going with dual Xeons, say around 2.6 or 2.8
> GHz, but I would be able to put something together with dual Opteron 64s
for
> just around the same price. I haven't been able to find much on the net
> about dual Opterons, and I'm wondering about stability issues, etc. I'm
not
> really interested in overclocking or anything extreme, and my needs apart
> from number crunching would be quite modest--I'm not a heavy gamer or
> anything.
>
> For that matter I wonder if the 64 bit processors will really offer any
> advantages in the next few years in general computer use.
>
> Another option would be to forget about dual CPUs completely and go with a
> moderately high end P4 or Athlon.
>
> I'm wondering if anybody has any experience with any of this that they'd
> like to share, or links where I could find info on dual Opterons.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Toby
>
>

In my opinion a slower dual cpu system will totally outperform a single cpu
with a much higher speed. i used to have a dual G4/450 and OSX. it would
outperform single G4/733 and so on. running multiple apps at the same time
or using multithreaded apps that will actually use all of the cpus, both of
them, that is much better then running a single cpu. i think you should
totally go for a dual cpu Xeon like you said instead of say a P4/3ghz.
you'll in my opinion notice a difference for sure.

i know nothing on 64bit other then no big deal for a few more years in my
opinion. windows doesn't even use it yet and won't for a long time. if you
get a dual opteron 64bit, the only way i would do that is if it was the same
or cheaper then similar from Xeon etc. i even hear it can slow the system
down in some cases. not sure why or remember where i heard it, but i think
it was on the screen savers on techtv.

me personally i would get the dual Xeon 2.8ghz unless the cost was a lot
more then the dual Xeon 2.6ghz. then just install windows xp pro as home
won't see the second cpu.

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:05:45 -0700, "msi" <> scribbled:

>
>"Toby" <> wrote in message
>news:407f4afe$0$196$...
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I am finally getting near buying a new PC to replace my ancient one, and I
>> have some decisions to make.
>>
>> My main use for it will be graphics, and both of the main programs I use
>> (Photoshop and Ultra Fractal) can take advantage of dual processors. UF in
>> particular depends primarily on pure number crunching, so CPU speed is the
>> major determinant of speed. Its architecture is such that dual processors
>> provide nearly twice the rendering speed of a single CPU.
>>
>> I had originally thought of going with dual Xeons, say around 2.6 or 2.8
>> GHz, but I would be able to put something together with dual Opteron 64s
>for
>> just around the same price. I haven't been able to find much on the net
>> about dual Opterons, and I'm wondering about stability issues, etc. I'm
>not
>> really interested in overclocking or anything extreme, and my needs apart
>> from number crunching would be quite modest--I'm not a heavy gamer or
>> anything.
>>
>> For that matter I wonder if the 64 bit processors will really offer any
>> advantages in the next few years in general computer use.
>>
>> Another option would be to forget about dual CPUs completely and go with a
>> moderately high end P4 or Athlon.
>>
>> I'm wondering if anybody has any experience with any of this that they'd
>> like to share, or links where I could find info on dual Opterons.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Toby
>>
>>
>
>In my opinion a slower dual cpu system will totally outperform a single cpu
>with a much higher speed. i used to have a dual G4/450 and OSX. it would
>outperform single G4/733 and so on. running multiple apps at the same time
>or using multithreaded apps that will actually use all of the cpus, both of
>them, that is much better then running a single cpu. i think you should
>totally go for a dual cpu Xeon like you said instead of say a P4/3ghz.
>you'll in my opinion notice a difference for sure.
>
>i know nothing on 64bit other then no big deal for a few more years in my
>opinion. windows doesn't even use it yet and won't for a long time. if you

You better tell Microsoft that. Apparently they say you're wrong:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...t/default.mspx

>get a dual opteron 64bit, the only way i would do that is if it was the same
>or cheaper then similar from Xeon etc. i even hear it can slow the system
>down in some cases. not sure why or remember where i heard it, but i think
>it was on the screen savers on techtv.
>
>me personally i would get the dual Xeon 2.8ghz unless the cost was a lot
>more then the dual Xeon 2.6ghz. then just install windows xp pro as home
>won't see the second cpu.
>

In article <32iv70drtq2q846ca4qo8o9isfmpjq6cbp@news-server>,
Voivod <> wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:05:45 -0700, "msi" <> scribbled:
>
> >
> >"Toby" <> wrote in message
> >news:407f4afe$0$196$...
> >> Hi folks,
> >>
> >> I am finally getting near buying a new PC to replace my ancient one, and I
> >> have some decisions to make.
> >>
> >> My main use for it will be graphics, and both of the main programs I use
> >> (Photoshop and Ultra Fractal) can take advantage of dual processors. UF in
> >> particular depends primarily on pure number crunching, so CPU speed is the
> >> major determinant of speed. Its architecture is such that dual processors
> >> provide nearly twice the rendering speed of a single CPU.
> >>
> >> I had originally thought of going with dual Xeons, say around 2.6 or 2.8
> >> GHz, but I would be able to put something together with dual Opteron 64s
> >for
> >> just around the same price. I haven't been able to find much on the net
> >> about dual Opterons, and I'm wondering about stability issues, etc. I'm
> >not
> >> really interested in overclocking or anything extreme, and my needs apart
> >> from number crunching would be quite modest--I'm not a heavy gamer or
> >> anything.
> >>
> >> For that matter I wonder if the 64 bit processors will really offer any
> >> advantages in the next few years in general computer use.
> >>
> >> Another option would be to forget about dual CPUs completely and go with a
> >> moderately high end P4 or Athlon.
> >>
> >> I'm wondering if anybody has any experience with any of this that they'd
> >> like to share, or links where I could find info on dual Opterons.
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance,
> >> Toby
> >>
> >>
> >
> >In my opinion a slower dual cpu system will totally outperform a single cpu
> >with a much higher speed. i used to have a dual G4/450 and OSX. it would
> >outperform single G4/733 and so on. running multiple apps at the same time
> >or using multithreaded apps that will actually use all of the cpus, both of
> >them, that is much better then running a single cpu. i think you should
> >totally go for a dual cpu Xeon like you said instead of say a P4/3ghz.
> >you'll in my opinion notice a difference for sure.
> >
> >i know nothing on 64bit other then no big deal for a few more years in my
> >opinion. windows doesn't even use it yet and won't for a long time. if you
>
> You better tell Microsoft that. Apparently they say you're wrong:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...t/default.mspx
>
> >get a dual opteron 64bit, the only way i would do that is if it was the same
> >or cheaper then similar from Xeon etc. i even hear it can slow the system
> >down in some cases. not sure why or remember where i heard it, but i think
> >it was on the screen savers on techtv.
> >
> >me personally i would get the dual Xeon 2.8ghz unless the cost was a lot
> >more then the dual Xeon 2.6ghz. then just install windows xp pro as home
> >won't see the second cpu.
> >
>

You might want to check which operating system you are refering to.
Windows SERVER 2003, that isn't on the list of supported OSes for
Photoshop CS.

There is no point in going with the 64-bit processors in the near future, as
the appleication software can't take advantage of it, and only server
versions of Windoze can use it. I don't know if WinXP would even boot on a
64-bit processor, but it certainly can't take advantage of it.

You didn't mention the size of the photos you'll be processing. Unless you
are using high-resolution scans of medium format film or larger, I think
either dual Xeons or a fast P4 would be adequate. I use an older 1.7Ghz P4
with 1GB of RAM and PS 7.0.1, and find it plenty fast for 10 megapixel scans
of 35mm slides. I can't recall ever taking more than 3-4 seconds to
complete an unsharp filter or a saturation adjustment at 8-bit depth,
usually among the slower operations. I think a lot of RAM is usually more
important than processor speed. My machine is maxed out at 1GB, and there
are times (using several layers) when I would have liked more.

Don


"Toby" <> wrote in message
news:407f4afe$0$196$...
> Hi folks,
>
> I am finally getting near buying a new PC to replace my ancient one, and I
> have some decisions to make.
>
> My main use for it will be graphics, and both of the main programs I use
> (Photoshop and Ultra Fractal) can take advantage of dual processors. UF in
> particular depends primarily on pure number crunching, so CPU speed is the
> major determinant of speed. Its architecture is such that dual processors
> provide nearly twice the rendering speed of a single CPU.
>
> I had originally thought of going with dual Xeons, say around 2.6 or 2.8
> GHz, but I would be able to put something together with dual Opteron 64s
for
> just around the same price. I haven't been able to find much on the net
> about dual Opterons, and I'm wondering about stability issues, etc. I'm
not
> really interested in overclocking or anything extreme, and my needs apart
> from number crunching would be quite modest--I'm not a heavy gamer or
> anything.
>
> For that matter I wonder if the 64 bit processors will really offer any
> advantages in the next few years in general computer use.
>
> Another option would be to forget about dual CPUs completely and go with a
> moderately high end P4 or Athlon.
>
> I'm wondering if anybody has any experience with any of this that they'd
> like to share, or links where I could find info on dual Opterons.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Toby
>
>

i didnt think 2003 was 64bit at all considering they have now just released
barely, a beta/alpha OS with 64bit.


"Voivod" <> wrote in message
news:32iv70drtq2q846ca4qo8o9isfmpjq6cbp@news-server...
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 04:05:45 -0700, "msi" <> scribbled:
>
> >
> >"Toby" <> wrote in message
> >news:407f4afe$0$196$...
> >> Hi folks,
> >>
> >> I am finally getting near buying a new PC to replace my ancient one,
and I
> >> have some decisions to make.
> >>
> >> My main use for it will be graphics, and both of the main programs I
use
> >> (Photoshop and Ultra Fractal) can take advantage of dual processors. UF
in
> >> particular depends primarily on pure number crunching, so CPU speed is
the
> >> major determinant of speed. Its architecture is such that dual
processors
> >> provide nearly twice the rendering speed of a single CPU.
> >>
> >> I had originally thought of going with dual Xeons, say around 2.6 or
2.8
> >> GHz, but I would be able to put something together with dual Opteron
64s
> >for
> >> just around the same price. I haven't been able to find much on the net
> >> about dual Opterons, and I'm wondering about stability issues, etc. I'm
> >not
> >> really interested in overclocking or anything extreme, and my needs
apart
> >> from number crunching would be quite modest--I'm not a heavy gamer or
> >> anything.
> >>
> >> For that matter I wonder if the 64 bit processors will really offer any
> >> advantages in the next few years in general computer use.
> >>
> >> Another option would be to forget about dual CPUs completely and go
with a
> >> moderately high end P4 or Athlon.
> >>
> >> I'm wondering if anybody has any experience with any of this that
they'd
> >> like to share, or links where I could find info on dual Opterons.
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance,
> >> Toby
> >>
> >>
> >
> >In my opinion a slower dual cpu system will totally outperform a single
cpu
> >with a much higher speed. i used to have a dual G4/450 and OSX. it would
> >outperform single G4/733 and so on. running multiple apps at the same
time
> >or using multithreaded apps that will actually use all of the cpus, both
of
> >them, that is much better then running a single cpu. i think you should
> >totally go for a dual cpu Xeon like you said instead of say a P4/3ghz.
> >you'll in my opinion notice a difference for sure.
> >
> >i know nothing on 64bit other then no big deal for a few more years in my
> >opinion. windows doesn't even use it yet and won't for a long time. if
you
>
> You better tell Microsoft that. Apparently they say you're wrong:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...t/default.mspx
>
> >get a dual opteron 64bit, the only way i would do that is if it was the
same
> >or cheaper then similar from Xeon etc. i even hear it can slow the system
> >down in some cases. not sure why or remember where i heard it, but i
think
> >it was on the screen savers on techtv.
> >
> >me personally i would get the dual Xeon 2.8ghz unless the cost was a lot
> >more then the dual Xeon 2.6ghz. then just install windows xp pro as home
> >won't see the second cpu.
> >
>

"Toby" <> wrote in
news:407f4afe$0$196$:

> I had originally thought of going with dual Xeons, say around 2.6 or
> 2.8 GHz, but I would be able to put something together with dual
> Opteron 64s for just around the same price. I haven't been able to
> find much on the net about dual Opterons, and I'm wondering about
> stability issues, etc. I'm not really interested in overclocking or
> anything extreme, and my needs apart from number crunching would be
> quite modest--I'm not a heavy gamer or anything.

Depending on what you are doing, two Opterons are between 20% and 80%
faster than two Xeons. In some tests, two Opterons score higher than a
quad Xeon system.

> For that matter I wonder if the 64 bit processors will really offer
> any advantages in the next few years in general computer use.

Not really for general use. However, the Opteron isn't just 64-bit, it
also has a highly efficient inter-CPU connection with no shared buses
(unlike the Xeon which shares both a memory bus and a bus connecting the
CPUs to the Northbridge). Not to mention the onboard memory controller on
the Opteron provides low latency, high speed access to RAM. Each CPU can
also (depending on your motherboard) have it's own banks of RAM to work out
of, access those at 6.4GB/sec while simultaneously accessing the second
processor's RAM at 6.4GB/sec.

Overall, the chip is a beast. Don't get a Xeon, more money for less
performance.

--
website: http://www.demonlag.com
AIM: FrznFoodClerk

damn, that's really good..........
"msi" <> wrote in message
news:20040416070554.165$...
>
> "Toby" <> wrote in message
> news:407f4afe$0$196$...
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I am finally getting near buying a new PC to replace my ancient one, and
I
> > have some decisions to make.
> >
> > My main use for it will be graphics, and both of the main programs I use
> > (Photoshop and Ultra Fractal) can take advantage of dual processors. UF
in
> > particular depends primarily on pure number crunching, so CPU speed is
the
> > major determinant of speed. Its architecture is such that dual
processors
> > provide nearly twice the rendering speed of a single CPU.
> >
> > I had originally thought of going with dual Xeons, say around 2.6 or 2.8
> > GHz, but I would be able to put something together with dual Opteron 64s
> for
> > just around the same price. I haven't been able to find much on the net
> > about dual Opterons, and I'm wondering about stability issues, etc. I'm
> not
> > really interested in overclocking or anything extreme, and my needs
apart
> > from number crunching would be quite modest--I'm not a heavy gamer or
> > anything.
> >
> > For that matter I wonder if the 64 bit processors will really offer any
> > advantages in the next few years in general computer use.
> >
> > Another option would be to forget about dual CPUs completely and go with
a
> > moderately high end P4 or Athlon.
> >
> > I'm wondering if anybody has any experience with any of this that they'd
> > like to share, or links where I could find info on dual Opterons.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Toby
> >
> >
>
> In my opinion a slower dual cpu system will totally outperform a single
cpu
> with a much higher speed. i used to have a dual G4/450 and OSX. it would
> outperform single G4/733 and so on. running multiple apps at the same time
> or using multithreaded apps that will actually use all of the cpus, both
of
> them, that is much better then running a single cpu. i think you should
> totally go for a dual cpu Xeon like you said instead of say a P4/3ghz.
> you'll in my opinion notice a difference for sure.
>
> i know nothing on 64bit other then no big deal for a few more years in my
> opinion. windows doesn't even use it yet and won't for a long time. if you
> get a dual opteron 64bit, the only way i would do that is if it was the
same
> or cheaper then similar from Xeon etc. i even hear it can slow the system
> down in some cases. not sure why or remember where i heard it, but i think
> it was on the screen savers on techtv.
>
> me personally i would get the dual Xeon 2.8ghz unless the cost was a lot
> more then the dual Xeon 2.6ghz. then just install windows xp pro as home
> won't see the second cpu.
>
>

"Don" <> wrote in
news::

> There is no point in going with the 64-bit processors in the near
> future, as the appleication software can't take advantage of it, and
> only server versions of Windoze can use it. I don't know if WinXP
> would even boot on a 64-bit processor, but it certainly can't take
> advantage of it.
>

You don't have any idea what you are talking about. In addition to
providing entry level 64-bit support for applications, the Opteron is also
the fastest 32-bit CPU on the market. Read anandtech.com's articles where
the dual opteron beats out a dual xeon by about 20% overall, and a quad
opteron absolutely destroys a quad xeon by over 30% on average.

Before you comment on technology, at least understand it. The Opteron has
3 modes of operation:
Legacy mode - Acts just like a 32-bit processor, provides no 64-bit
capabilities. Still gains advantages of HyperTransport and onboard memory
controller.

64-bit Compatibility mode - Can run a mix of 64 and 32-bit programs.
Requires a 64-bit OS.

64-bit Long mode - Provides access to ~128TB of address space, supports
extended register set for 64-bit apps. Requires 64-bit OS and 64-bit apps.



--
website: http://www.demonlag.com
AIM: FrznFoodClerk

Mnay thanks to you all for the responses.

Toby
"DeMoN LaG" <n@a> wrote in message
news:Xns94CDB059E94F2Wobbly@208.42.66.156...
> "Toby" <> wrote in
> news:407f4afe$0$196$:
>
> > I had originally thought of going with dual Xeons, say around 2.6 or
> > 2.8 GHz, but I would be able to put something together with dual
> > Opteron 64s for just around the same price. I haven't been able to
> > find much on the net about dual Opterons, and I'm wondering about
> > stability issues, etc. I'm not really interested in overclocking or
> > anything extreme, and my needs apart from number crunching would be
> > quite modest--I'm not a heavy gamer or anything.
>
> Depending on what you are doing, two Opterons are between 20% and 80%
> faster than two Xeons. In some tests, two Opterons score higher than a
> quad Xeon system.
>
> > For that matter I wonder if the 64 bit processors will really offer
> > any advantages in the next few years in general computer use.
>
> Not really for general use. However, the Opteron isn't just 64-bit, it
> also has a highly efficient inter-CPU connection with no shared buses
> (unlike the Xeon which shares both a memory bus and a bus connecting the
> CPUs to the Northbridge). Not to mention the onboard memory controller on
> the Opteron provides low latency, high speed access to RAM. Each CPU can
> also (depending on your motherboard) have it's own banks of RAM to work
out
> of, access those at 6.4GB/sec while simultaneously accessing the second
> processor's RAM at 6.4GB/sec.
>
> Overall, the chip is a beast. Don't get a Xeon, more money for less
> performance.
>
> --
> website: http://www.demonlag.com
> AIM: FrznFoodClerk